What God Would Say

I see you had fun, not much time so lets go point for point, first, theory of evolution.
Its not fact I will argue.

Lest see what consensus (mob-rule) has to offer about the origin of the first cell.

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process."

Matter of speculation? Not a fact? Lets go on...

"It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO. Such an atmosphere provides reducing conditions in which organic molecules, given a source of energy such as sunlight or electrical discharge, can form spontaneously. The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids (Figure 1.2). Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

Evolutionist still on board, right? So is it that from Millers experiments we draw conclusions that it is plausible to believe that rest of the theory is right?
So we got alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and glycine to be formed, bits and pieces, from there we go to observe functional cell, thats a gap, "scientific gap",
if I recall right. Why not frase it "leap of faith" instead? There is a logical gap also.

All we have is speculation of early stage on RNA floating in otherwise empty cell ( with hard science we have only alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and glycine and the existence of the cell unexplained) and then we leap to full operating cell. That really is a gap too big to be taken as a fact.

Thats like computer with only outerior and parts of reading/writing head (early stage of RNA) floating inside it, then you are presented with
fully functional selfreplicating computer, and explanation is that it just happened, we gave it electric shock, and behold, self replicating computer!

No faith involved, just a fact?

And which came first, DNA, the blueprint, or RNA, reader/replicator ? Chicken or the Egg? No problems in evolution theory?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

I see you had fun, not much time so lets go point for point, first theory of evolution.
Its not fact I will argue.

Lest see what consensus (mob-rule) has to offer about the origin of the first cell.

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process."

Matter of speculation? Not a fact? Lets go on...

Click to expand...

Nothing to do with evolution.
But well done on knocking down the straw man.

"It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO. Such an atmosphere provides reducing conditions in which organic molecules, given a source of energy such as sunlight or electrical discharge, can form spontaneously. The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids (Figure 1.2). Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Evolutionary happenings fall under teleology so yes, evolution is a fact. Even if theology is correct. Why write out a whole page attempting to propose a rather ambiguous or unscientific idea? Don't bother attempting to debate the evolution of complex systems, which states:

Abstract: Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality.

Evolutionary happenings fall under teleology so yes, evolution is a fact. Even if theology is correct. Why write out a whole page attempting to propose a rather ambiguous or unscientific idea? Don't bother attempting to debate the evolution of complex systems, which states:

Abstract: Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality.

Faith, and wishes are unnecessarily postulated. Faith and the wish to be gives reason and evidence for life including their own by creating hope, hedonism, and omniscience all at the same time. Because he has his faithful nature, he knows you truly believe. Because you love you know faith comes true. And you are in love because wish came from faith's rib cage. Like fire and water.

Faith, and wishes are unnecessarily postulated. Faith and the wish to be gives reason and evidence for life including their own by creating hope, hedonism, and omniscience all at the same time. Because he has his faithful nature, he knows you truly believe. Because you love you know faith comes true. And you are in love because wish came from faith's rib cage. Like fire and water.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say, nor why you think that's a valid reply to my post.

I see you had fun, not much time so lets go point for point, first, theory of evolution.
Its not fact I will argue.

Lest see what consensus (mob-rule) has to offer about the origin of the first cell.

Click to expand...

I don't know why I'm helping you, but for future reference you shouldn't argue against the Theory of Evolution by talking about the Theory of Abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution already assumes the first cell exists. In the Theory of Abiogenesis, there are several competing explanations, some of them quite compelling. Obviously it's difficult of make conclusions about something for which there is no likely fossil evidence and which could take quite a long time to happen from start to finish in a lab. That's the difference between science and religion, science is willing to say the words, "I don't know". It's not a defect, it's a feature.

Also, consensus isn't just mob rule, in science you do have to show your work, so it's not like consensus is arbitrary, it's the collective judgement of thousands of very intelligent people who each have an interest in proving the others wrong.

Are you saying that you won't believe in evolution until science has all the answers, including the origin of life? Is it all or nothing with you? Are you willing to reject the overwhelming evidence for evolution because scientists don't yet know for sure how the first life started?

Or are you rejecting it because you think it clashes with some kind of religious view you have?

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process."

Matter of speculation? Not a fact? Lets go on...

Click to expand...

Right. Science doesn't have all the answers yet, and that's ok. There's a lot we don't know, and nobody is claiming to know everything, except biblical literalists who claim that the creation of life happened exactly as written in the bible, and there are many good reasons to be suspicious of that claim.

So is it that from Millers experiments we draw conclusions that it is plausible to believe that rest of the theory is right?

Click to expand...

Be careful you don't mix your theories. It is plausible to believe that life came from non-life, and that is what Miller's experiment supports. That theory is called "abiogenesis". The theory of evolution, on the other hand, explains how and why life is the way it is today, and how and why it has changed over the billions of years it has existed on Earth. Miller's experiment has nothing to do with that.

So we got alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and glycine to be formed, bits and pieces, from there we go to observe functional cell, thats a gap, "scientific gap",
if I recall right. Why not frase it "leap of faith" instead? There is a logical gap also.

Click to expand...

Yes. I suggest that if you're interested you read up on some of the scientific theories about how the first cells might have arisen from those nucleic acids. It seems you're aware of part of the story but not the rest, and so you're not in a good position to draw an informed conclusion about the state of the science right now.

All we have is speculation of early stage on RNA floating in otherwise empty cell ( with hard science we have only alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and glycine and the existence of the cell unexplained) and then we leap to full operating cell. That really is a gap too big to be taken as a fact.

Click to expand...

How does this leap happen, according to the science you have read? Or have you not investigated it?

No faith involved, just a fact?

Click to expand...

Religious people often believe that scientists claim to know everything. They don't. If we already knew everything, there'd be no employment for scientists.

The difference between religion and science is that in science it is ok not to know the answer. Research is what scientists do to try to find answers. And when they don't know the answer, they say they don't know.

And which came first, DNA, the blueprint, or RNA, reader/replicator ? Chicken or the Egg? No problems in evolution theory?

Click to expand...

DNA, being more complex than RNA, probably came later. The first replicators may have been something like viruses, perhaps. We don't know.

You have pointed out no problems in evolutionary theory so far.

But I would ask you: if evolution is false, what do you intend to put in its place? Do you have another explanation for life in mind?

The difference between religion and science is that in science it is ok not to know the answer. Research is what scientists do to try to find answers. And when they don't know the answer, they say they don't know.

Click to expand...

I would say the most fundamental difference is that science is a process - meaning change is an integral, necessary part. Sure, sometimes it takes decades or even more for a new theory to prevail, but it does happen. And scientific knowledge progresses.

Religious people often believe that scientists claim to know everything. They don't. If we already knew everything, there'd be no employment for scientists.

The difference between religion and science is that in science it is ok not to know the answer. Research is what scientists do to try to find answers. And when they don't know the answer, they say they don't know.

Click to expand...

That simple James ?

Science is full of egos and politics .

Hence to say they " don't know " could cost them their job .

But more importantly , the answer lays in out side the box thinking , to which they are ridiculed and worse.

Yes. Scientists are people, too. However, this does not make science the same as religion.

Hence to say they " don't know " could cost them their job.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kinds of scenarios you have in mind, there.

Scientific researchers, by the very nature of their job description, are working every day at the border between what is known and what is not known. If they lost their jobs every time they said "I don't know", there would be no employed scientists.

But more importantly, the answer lays in out side the box thinking , to which they are ridiculed and worse.

Research is fine as long as it conforms to the mainstream thinking .

Click to expand...

The history of science proves you wrong, because it is littered with examples of ideas that were, at the time, very far "outside the box", yet which are now accepted as "mainstream". Relativity. Quantum theory. Evolution by natural selection.

Read the popular science news and you'll see "outside the box" thinking by employed "mainstream" scientists being reported every single day.

Yes. Scientists are people, too. However, this does not make science the same as religion.

I'm not sure what kinds of scenarios you have in mind, there.

Scientific researchers, by the very nature of their job description, are working every day at the border between what is known and what is not known. If they lost their jobs every time they said "I don't know", there would be no employed scientists.

The history of science proves you wrong, because it is littered with examples of ideas that were, at the time, very far "outside the box", yet which are now accepted as "mainstream". Relativity. Quantum theory. Evolution by natural selection.

Read the popular science news and you'll see "outside the box" thinking by employed "mainstream" scientists being reported every single day.

We're aware of anti-gravity in the form of the so-called "dark energy" that may be pushing galaxies apart (although recently I read of a new challenge to the necessity of that idea). But nobody has seen anything fall upwards, so at this time there is nothing much to study in terms of anti-gravity. Having said that, if anybody has a plausible idea of how anti-gravity might be achieved, scientists would be jumping at the chance to develop the theory and technology associated with that.

To take a vaguely-related example, you can find investigations into various "novel" propulsion systems for spacecraft on the NASA web pages. Recently scientists finished investigating a particular "drive" that seemed to produce thrust via some unknown process. If I recall correctly, the thrust is real, but it turns out to have a conventional (though subtle) explanation after all. Scientists didn't look at that and say "It can't be real!" and dismiss it. What happened was they said, first, "Show us that it works". Then, with that hurdle cleared the question became "Let's research and see if we can figure out how this thing is doing what it is doing." This is what scientists do all the time.

If you want "maverick" ideas, search the contents page of any professional scientific journal in any given month. You'll find all kinds of weird investigations and ideas and suggestions being tossed around by professional scientists.

It could be that when you say "maverick" you have in mind not a maverick idea so much as a maverick person proposing the idea. By that measure, anything published in a respect science journal would be "part of the mainstream" and so uninteresting to you, whereas anything dreamt up by a non-professional in his garden shed might fit the bill as a "maverick" idea - the idea of a maverick who is not part of "the establishment".

You should be aware that the notion that revolutionary breakthroughs in science will come from the guy in the shed out back is a romantic one, but one that is unlikely to come to pass. Science these days is sophisticated. It is often carried out by teams of people working together to achieve a common goal. No individual could build the Large Hadron Collider and find the Higgs boson (look - a maverick idea, right there!). No single individual could sequence the human genome for the first time.

Most likely, any breakthough in anti-gravity, if one occurs, will come from one or a few professional scientists who spend a lot of time working on gravitational theory, most likely as part of a team aiming to investigate some kind of puzzling anomaly or something unrelated.